Monday, February 28, 2005

Argue what you believe. Believe in what you argue.

The short of it is that Chuck Schumer, in his role as head of the Democratic
Senate Campaign Committee, is actively recruiting pro-life Representative Jim
Langevin to run against Republican Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island and a group of
Hollywood actors, producers and philanthropists have signed a letter protesting
this action, saying it undermines the core and soul of the party. The Moose
suggests that Schumer should, ever so politely, tell the signers of that letter
to shove it. The Moose suggests that by doing so Schumer will demonstrate that
Democrats aren't beholden to Hollywood liberals.

Now let me be up front about this. I don't know anything about this
situation beyond what The Moose is reporting in his post. I don't know anything
about Jim Langevin. I don't know to what extent Mr. Langevin's position on
abortion has influenced Mr. Schumer's decision to recruit him. I don't know
anything about the inner workings of Rhode Island politics. I don't know if this
is or is not a wise choice.

But I do know some things about the important role that triangulation has
played in recent Democratic history. Triangulation is the Clintonian strategy in
which a Democrat convinces the great middle part of America that they share
their values by openly attacking people to the left that do things that make the
middle uncomfortable (rap music, gay marriage, etc.). It was a strategy that
probably helped Clinton win the presidency.

But it has also knee-capped the party as a whole. When Democrats spend an
inordinate amount of time attacking fellow Democrats it leaves the impression
that Democrats are people worthy of attack. Thus, attacking another Democrat or
a fellow traveler is something that should be done only when it is necessary.
Not when it is political convenient.

The problem with triangulation is not the attacks on any individual
example of questionable behavior but instead the reason for those
attacks. The problem with triangulation is that has been used as a cold,
calculating political move rather than a heartfelt expression of honest
disagreement with those attacked.

Case in point: Howard Dean made a name for himself by attacking Democratic
appeasement to the Republican agenda. But he did it because he honestly believed
it was the wrong thing to do and that if it continued it would doom the
Democrats. I don't think anyone, even Dean, expected him to get the kind of
positive response he got for his attacks. But he didn't do it for the positive
response. He did it because it was the right thing to do.

Now, if Schumer honestly feels that the signers of that letter have got it
all wrong then yes, he should make it clear that they have got it all
wrong. But if Schumer were to turn on Hollywood out of some calculated attempt
to curry favor with the great middle then he will simply add weight to the
stereotype of Democrats having no core values. Which, ironically, is precisely
what the signers of that letter are warning against.

Argue what you believe. Believe in what you argue. The rest will follow.